.Over the last several years, there have been a couple of threads from NY kiters whining about the Office of Parks arbitrarily banning kiting. So far as I know, their only approach so far has been to whine and brownnose with no success whatsoever.

As many of you know, I tend to advocate a more aggressive approach where the PRIMARY goal is to undermine any contention that any ban is LEGAL.

It is likely that documents in the case not only argue what authority and/or limits to the OoP’s authority exist, but also that they state EXACTLY where the supporting case law etc. can be found.

By being able to present a cognizant argument in support of allowing kiting with intelligent reference to DETAILED legal authority (whether actually binding or not), ANY authority is much less likely to automatically brush off the complaints. At the very least, they will get a CLEAR idea that fighting about will be a LOT MORE WORK than usual.

Once they decide that fighting is MORE WORK, they often develop a strange tendency to want to be MORE COOPERATIVE and coincidentally do LESS WORK.

Here is an excerpt from the article: [Emphasis added]

" Its rules banned outdoor smoking at more than 200 parks, recreational facilities and historic sites under the agency's jurisdiction, including a handful of state parks in New York City.

The agency said that the state Legislature had given a "broad grant of authority to State Parks to manage and operate its facilities to protect public health, safety and welfare," according to the plan for the rules published in the State Register.

CLASH, though, saw the regulations as usurping the Legislature's role as rulemaker and cited the landmark 1987 Court of Appeals decision in Boreali v. Axelrod on the constitutional separation of powers.

The potential harm from second hand smoke does not equate to any number of outdoor activities that might not be appropriate for mixed use public areas. I think that should be clear to any reasonable person. There are plenty of legal places to kite in NY and most municipalities have been very cooperative, I don't think we want the legislature getting involved.

William Munney wrote:The potential harm from second hand smoke does not equate to any number of outdoor activities that might not be appropriate for mixed use public areas. I think that should be clear to any reasonable person. There are plenty of legal places to kite in NY and most municipalities have been very cooperative, I don't think we want the legislature getting involved.

Although getting the bigger crooks involved is an option, I personally consider it a last resort.

I am pointing out that they may EASILY have exceeded their authority in SOME way with their kiting bans. This type of situation is COMMON in the land of the real free and home of the very brave.

Because there is NO GOOD REASON for most, if not ALL, of the BANS, and their regulations are THEORETICALLY supposed to be based upon GOOD REASONS, being able to succinctly show these facts by reference to the EXACT, RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY, puts complainants in a MUCH more convincing position (specifically, not so much on their knees and tends to keep their noses less brown).

NYKiter wrote:We have established good relations with our park without any threats.

Congratulations. Please let us know what park you are referring to and what EXACTLY "good relations" means.

And incidentally, pointing out to an authority that some action of theirs exceeds their authority (which they will recognize as being ILLEGAL), is NOT a threat. Although it may make someone who thinks you're right, FEEL threatened (by the fear of becoming involved in some negative consequence as a result of their WRONGFUL conduct - in which case, it's tough titties).

So glad I live in Texas where we don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. We don't even have private beaches, and the only restricted areas are Coast Guard restricted and a bird sanctuary down by SPI.